Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Deleted.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!

Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.

And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.

Should the models be built "correctly" too? Do they contribute to "out of game standards" too?

Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.

 Castozor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!

Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.

And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.

Should the models be built "correctly" too? Do they contribute to "out of game standards" too?

Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'm actually not all that worried about how exactly a model is put together. I'd much rather deal with some occassional mild modeling for advantage than tell ork players to stop doing cool vehicle conversions because it impacts their sillouette.

You don't have to use technical paints on the base. That's a floor, not a requirement. You just have to do something considered basing.

Just like you don't have to use a wash if you prefer to do much more intricate highlighting and shadowing.

For the guy with the see-through bases on his custodes, I can't imagine anyone would try to deny you the points based on that; the point is that you did something more than the basic black bases, for aesthetic reasons. That counts as basing too.

 Castozor wrote:
Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.

Well, models being painted now is, so let's not ignore that little "actual game mechanic" thing. You can't call one thing an actual game mechanic while ignoring how the other now counts as one.

And when I say "built correctly" - I'm talking about weaponry that has no real effect on silhouette. Chainswords vs power swords, plasma guns vs boltguns, etc. Just to confirm that I don't actually need the "right" weapon equipped, because it's out of game standards?

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!

Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.

And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.

Should the models be built "correctly" too? Do they contribute to "out of game standards" too?

Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'm actually not all that worried about how exactly a model is put together. I'd much rather deal with some occassional mild modeling for advantage than tell ork players to stop doing cool vehicle conversions because it impacts their sillouette.

GW really likes to be contradictory.

On the one hand they want to call it the hobby and discuss cool Kitbashing, while in the other hand they want you to use a restrictive LOS that makes it hard to actually do Kitbashing without issues.


They want to keyword everything and create bespoke rules for everything, but refuse to do it for LOS.

A simple scale based on keywords and you can switch to a more realistic Los that incorporates the assumption the models are dynamically moving and takin cover, while also allowing people to make cool conversions without worrying it's advantageous.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You don't have to use technical paints on the base. That's a floor, not a requirement. You just have to do something considered basing.

Just like you don't have to use a wash if you prefer to do much more intricate highlighting and shadowing.

Exactly - it's just that washing and technical paints are some of the quickest and simplest ways to get to that Battle Ready stage. You can get there however you want, and it's not exactly overly difficult to do.

3-month late April fools joke?

I see this as a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Gamers will know they won the game, and hobbyists can feel better because they “won” or didn’t lose by as much.

Just a free handy for people that like to paint, that can be ignored by anyone strictly concerned with how the game played... non-issue is unimportant.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.

Well, models being painted now is, so let's not ignore that little "actual game mechanic" thing. You can't call one thing an actual game mechanic while ignoring how the other now counts as one.

And when I say "built correctly" - I'm talking about weaponry that has no real effect on silhouette. Chainswords vs power swords, plasma guns vs boltguns, etc. Just to confirm that I don't actually need the "right" weapon equipped, because it's out of game standards?

I think there's a pretty clear difference there. If the bits you're using make it actively confusing to keep track of what a given squad/model is equipped with, that can create some minor game confusion. The same generally isn't true ob paint jobs (except maybe if you're allying in 3 flavors of space marines and painting them all the same).

I'm perfectly fine with my opponent saying his devastator squad that appears to be built with a heavy bolter, lascannon, missile launcher, and plasma cannon is actually just all lascannons. That's easy to remember. I'm less okay with the same bits being used to reflect a mix of lascannons and plasma cannons. Especially if there's a second, similarly jumbled squad that's pretending to have a different combination. But saying the grey marines are ultramarines? That's fine. I'm not going to tell my opponent he's having fun wrong for not painting something to someone's arbitrary standards.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I think there's a pretty clear difference there. If the bits you're using make it actively confusing to keep track of what a given squad/model is equipped with, that can create some minor game confusion. The same generally isn't true ob paint jobs (except maybe if you're allying in 3 flavors of space marines and painting them all the same).

I'm more talking about something like a chainsword as a power sword, or vice versa, and just clarifying that that's fine with them.

But saying the grey marines are ultramarines? That's fine. I'm not going to tell my opponent he's having fun wrong for not painting something to someone's arbitrary standards.

Oh, that's fine by me (of course, depending on how long those Marines have been unpainted) - but I don't agree with the idea that modelling is sacrosanct and super important because the rules say so, but we can ignore rules that say painting is important. Either they're both important, or neither are - and I just want that clarification from Castozor.

No, dumbest thing I've seen from the new releases. Will not use it, or force anyone playing me to use it.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Just starting out? Not had my spare time lately? Nah, of course I'm not going to hold you to that.
Had those models for years, and you play with them every time we game? Yeah, I'm going to have expected you to at least try and paint by now.

What can I say, I'm a busy guy....

tulun wrote:
Can you ever truly be battle ready?

I'd like to see how it is enforced. My current favorite squad is my Catachans that I painred on a whim and they came out brilliantly. I was so happy with them that I gave them a shot of Purity Seal to protect them a bit.

As I was lovingly putting them back into my carry boxes I saw one had a hand left unpainted. They'd been base coated in Contrasts, had layering built up in key places, they'd had individual colours tweaked to show individuality, and a couple of older techniques used in various places like dry brushing and hard lining and weathering. So better than minimal tabletop but not quite character level.

But technically not fully painted. Technically. But now varnished. If you try claim the 10VPs, especially if it's a tie breaker I'm probably going to not play you again. Salty? Yeah.

I agree playing with an army of grey legs on black bases isn't as fun as playing against a perfectly painted Golden Daemon worthy army but not everyone has the skill, or the time to have painted everything. Especially if it's a new unit or a noob. Enthusiasm is way more important than a layer or two of pigment.

Edit - for clarity sake I'd say a weapon is a major area for "battle ready" standard, which includes the bits holding it. If you don't and YMMV then we've got a good example of how subjective this rule can be.

It's a rule that unfairly penalises people with certain types of disabilities (and even those who just have a personal preference regarding painting or the lack thereof).

So not only will I not use it, I am exceptionally disappointed that GW would include such a rule in the first place.

I've been doing good the past year or two catching up on my backlog of painting, and prefer to field only painted models whenever possible.

But there is no way in hell I would use this rule. GW can go get stuffed with this sort of BS.

Kayback wrote:

tulun wrote:
Can you ever truly be battle ready?

I'd like to see how it is enforced. My current favorite squad is my Catachans that I painred on a whim and they came out brilliantly. I was so happy with them that I gave them a shot of Purity Seal to protect them a bit.

As I was lovingly putting them back into my carry boxes I saw one had a hand left unpainted. They'd been base coated in Contrasts, had layering built up in key places, they'd had individual colours tweaked to show individuality, and a couple of older techniques used in various places like dry brushing and hard lining and weathering. So better than minimal tabletop but not quite character level.

But technically not fully painted. Technically. But now varnished. If you try claim the 10VPs, especially if it's a tie breaker I'm probably going to not play you again. Salty? Yeah.

I agree playing with an army of grey legs on black bases isn't as fun as playing against a perfectly painted Golden Daemon worthy army but not everyone has the skill, or the time to have painted everything. Especially if it's a new unit or a noob. Enthusiasm is way more important than a layer or two of pigment.

I doubt anyone is going to call you on it...But... in every game you will know that you left a hand unpainted. Like a splinter in your mind, those 10 VP and that unpainted hand will drive you mad. Paint the hand. You know you have to. You pointed it out. You can't escape your own accusation.

I have a hard time seeing what particular disability would allow you to play a miniature game that involves careful assembly of multi-part plastic kits, but would prevent you from using a can of spray paint and some extremely basic detailing - a splotch of metal or black paint on the gun, another splotch of paint on the head, a third splotch on the base of something with texture. Maybe if someone was severely allergic to paint I guess?

Battle Ready isn't a quality-based standard, it's a "did you do these things?" standard. You don't have to them well, you just have to do them. For 99.99% of people at least, from a disability standpoint, assembling a multi-part plastic kit is more likely to be a barrier to play than the painting requirements.

If you yourself have such a disability, I'm very sympathetic, and anyone who tried to dock you the 10 points for it would not be worth playing with. But I don't think you should be using those people as a sword to attack the rule with if you aren't one yourself, when really it's just a case of "I don't like painting." Just own that, if that's what it is.

Guys, the rule of there because the GW missions will be the official tournament missions for pretty much every region. No more differing standards depending where you play. Think of it more as a "you get 10 points just for showing up" since most tournaments require it anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, so you know g that a monochrome scheme meets 3 color standard? Just zenithal and then wash. That's 3 colors. Do a ghost theme. Just do something! The outage at this rule is baffling to me. If you don't want to paint, play a board game or x-wing. Both are excellent alternatives, and if those 10 points are THAT important to you, board games and x-wing are usually more balanced than 40k anyway.

 Grimgold wrote:

tulun wrote:
Can you ever truly be battle ready?

They actually have a definition of battle ready, and it's fairly forgiving, just base colors and and a shade, with a technical on the base. The kind of thing you could bust out pretty quickly if you are so inclined. It doesn't have a highlight requirement, so you don't even have to drybrush. The base part is the only annoying part for me, because with my custodes I used acrylic bases to make them look like they were part of the scenery they were standing on, and I'm sure I'm going to get digned on that.

Technically if you add the highlight, that's no longer a battle ready paint job so it no longer qualifies. RAW you lose the points if your army is painted too well too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
Guys, the rule of there because the GW missions will be the official tournament missions for pretty much every region. No more differing standards depending where you play. Think of it more as a "you get 10 points just for showing up" since most tournaments require it anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, so you know g that a monochrome scheme meets 3 color standard? Just zenithal and then wash. That's 3 colors. Do a ghost theme. Just do something! The outage at this rule is baffling to me. If you don't want to paint, play a board game or x-wing. Both are excellent alternatives, and if those 10 points are THAT important to you, board games and x-wing are usually more balanced than 40k anyway.

This is a stupid take. Let's say I'm a newish player. I just spent 3 weeks of my limited free time assembling 2000pts of models and doing practice games with empty bases, now I want to do your strat for the tournament on saturday.

What am I zenithaling with? I don't have an airbrush and it's been crappy weather so I can't use rattle cans. I have to brush prime so just priming everything will take more time than I have. So I guess I'll wait for next month. Weather's been better so I can rattle can but Covid stuff means I'm working 60 hours a week. Between that and the family I can't even find 10 minutes to rattle can everything so I can't do it. The next month the tournament gets canceled because the TO has scabies. So I'll hit the next one. Chapter Approved comes out between them and my power-unit got mauled, going up 20% in points and now I have to change up the whole list because it's effectively dead. I decide the game is stupid and sell all my crap.


If you love painting so much, why are you here? You can get into portraiture or landscapes. Both are excellent alternatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I have a hard time seeing what particular disability would allow you to play a miniature game that involves careful assembly of multi-part plastic kits, but would prevent you from using a can of spray paint and some extremely basic detailing - a splotch of metal or black paint on the gun, another splotch of paint on the head, a third splotch on the base of something with texture. Maybe if someone was severely allergic to paint I guess?

Battle Ready isn't a quality-based standard, it's a "did you do these things?" standard. You don't have to them well, you just have to do them. For 99.99% of people at least, from a disability standpoint, assembling a multi-part plastic kit is more likely to be a barrier to play than the painting requirements.

If you yourself have such a disability, I'm very sympathetic, and anyone who tried to dock you the 10 points for it would not be worth playing with. But I don't think you should be using those people as a sword to attack the rule with if you aren't one yourself, when really it's just a case of "I don't like painting." Just own that, if that's what it is.

Blind people have friends who can assemble stuff. Or even easier can buy Ebay prebuilt castoffs just to use. Same with people missing appendages or with diseases like parkinsons.

You're incredibly ableist.

If you can't find 10 minutes to use a spray paint can, I don't think you're going to be going to any tournaments either.

If the argument is "I just don't like painting," that's a perfectly valid argument. "I can't find the time to do something that takes about 5 minutes a model" really isn't particularly convincing, though. Just be honest about it if the truth is you don't like painting and it gives you angst to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I have a hard time seeing what particular disability would allow you to play a miniature game that involves careful assembly of multi-part plastic kits, but would prevent you from using a can of spray paint and some extremely basic detailing - a splotch of metal or black paint on the gun, another splotch of paint on the head, a third splotch on the base of something with texture. Maybe if someone was severely allergic to paint I guess?

Battle Ready isn't a quality-based standard, it's a "did you do these things?" standard. You don't have to them well, you just have to do them. For 99.99% of people at least, from a disability standpoint, assembling a multi-part plastic kit is more likely to be a barrier to play than the painting requirements.

If you yourself have such a disability, I'm very sympathetic, and anyone who tried to dock you the 10 points for it would not be worth playing with. But I don't think you should be using those people as a sword to attack the rule with if you aren't one yourself, when really it's just a case of "I don't like painting." Just own that, if that's what it is.

Blind people have friends who can assemble stuff. Or even easier can buy Ebay prebuilt castoffs just to use. Same with people missing appendages or with diseases like parkinsons.

You're incredibly ableist.

A blind person is going to have a much more basic problem with playing 40k than painting the models, so presumably this whole post is a joke in slightly bad taste?

On the off-chance that it isn't...if people with those conditions can find people to assemble the models for them or move them around the table for them or whatever else, presumably they can also find people to paint for them, right? That was my whole point: it's not the painting that is likely to pose the trouble for people with physical disabilities playing 40k. It's already not disability-friendly to begin with. It's going to be a very rare person who can overcome all the other hurdles to playing 40k but for whom painting will be the thing they can't manage, and for that person, obviously nobody is going to try to deny them the 10 points.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you can't find 10 minutes to use a spray paint can, I don't think you're going to be going to any tournaments either.

If the argument is "I just don't like painting," that's a perfectly valid argument. "I can't find the time to do something that takes about 5 minutes a model" really isn't particularly convincing, though. Just be honest about it if the truth is you don't like painting and it gives you angst to do it.

50 models would still take 4.5 hours. 150 models for my ork bros would take 12.5.

5 minutes per model? Even three layers of rattle can takes longer than that just off drying time. You're also completely ignoring the fact that building the model is ACTUALLY mandatory and takes a huge amount of time in and of itself. So going to the event you already are investing as much as 20+ hours in just straight build time, that you absolutely cannot substitute in any way. So yeah, if I'm working overtime, have a family, AND need to build models as well, I absolutely could be without an extra free 12.5 hours to make my Orkz look like gak.

Also, the whole thing is incredibly unfair. Best Painted doesn't have 10% of it's points locked behind placing top 16. Why should best general have 10% of it's points locked behind painting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you can't find 10 minutes to use a spray paint can, I don't think you're going to be going to any tournaments either.

If the argument is "I just don't like painting," that's a perfectly valid argument. "I can't find the time to do something that takes about 5 minutes a model" really isn't particularly convincing, though. Just be honest about it if the truth is you don't like painting and it gives you angst to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I have a hard time seeing what particular disability would allow you to play a miniature game that involves careful assembly of multi-part plastic kits, but would prevent you from using a can of spray paint and some extremely basic detailing - a splotch of metal or black paint on the gun, another splotch of paint on the head, a third splotch on the base of something with texture. Maybe if someone was severely allergic to paint I guess?

Battle Ready isn't a quality-based standard, it's a "did you do these things?" standard. You don't have to them well, you just have to do them. For 99.99% of people at least, from a disability standpoint, assembling a multi-part plastic kit is more likely to be a barrier to play than the painting requirements.

If you yourself have such a disability, I'm very sympathetic, and anyone who tried to dock you the 10 points for it would not be worth playing with. But I don't think you should be using those people as a sword to attack the rule with if you aren't one yourself, when really it's just a case of "I don't like painting." Just own that, if that's what it is.

Blind people have friends who can assemble stuff. Or even easier can buy Ebay prebuilt castoffs just to use. Same with people missing appendages or with diseases like parkinsons.

You're incredibly ableist.

A blind person is going to have a much more basic problem with playing 40k than painting the models, so presumably this whole post is a joke in slightly bad taste?

On the off-chance that it isn't...if people with those conditions can find people to assemble the models for them or move them around the table for them or whatever else, presumably they can also find people to paint for them, right? That was my whole point: it's not the painting that is likely to pose the trouble for people with physical disabilities playing 40k. It's already not disability-friendly to begin with. It's going to be a very rare person who can overcome all the other hurdles to playing 40k but for whom painting will be the thing they can't manage, and for that person, obviously nobody is going to try to deny them the 10 points.

How about the blind guy that goes to adepticon every year? Also, yes lets just increase the burden of that person on their friends and family for the sake of a 10 man locals tourney.

For large events, yes there are certain standards that are expected, even of people with disabilities. But this theoretically applies to EVERY event, which locks that person into begging the people close to them, or forking over quite a lot of money, just to be able field one extra new unit. Painting is much more difficult and much more burdenous on people who don't have experience with it than assembly is.

Also, did you really think about that first sentence before you wrote it? "You could afford 40$ for your rulebook, could you not? Presumably you could come up with 200$ for the same rulebook, right? Or you know what, the second sentence is bad too. "It's already hard for disabled people to go up stairs, so it shouldn't matter that we make them taller and put spikes on them, right?"

And that last bit is the thing. People absolutely are going to deny them that ten points if it's a large event. This is why, especially for competitions, you put the accomodations outfront. You have to adjust the system ahead of time because just giving people free points leads to lots of issues, should those points make a significant difference.

I guess it wasn't a joke.

Adepticon has painting requirements, so obviously the blind guy figured something out (or got a dispensation - either way, problem solved). I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said there was a much more basic problem to overcome than painting. If you asked him I'm pretty sure he wouldn't say that the painting requirement was the hardest thing about gaming while blind. Moreover, I doubt he'd be very happy at you using his disability as a sword to attack a rule with. If someone with disabilities actually has concerns about the rule, let them bring it up - don't take advantage of their disability to bolster your point.

I will take the fact that you didn't respond to the much more fundamental point about 40k having lots of things that are a lot less disability-friendly than a painting requirement as an admission that the point is right.

On the painting thing, you don't need to do 3 layers of spray paint. That's kinda the point. The requirements are extremely low. You can do one layer of primer, throw some splotches of two other colors on two other areas, a wash, dab some textured paint on the base, and call it a day. It'll be ugly, but it satisfies the rule. Which I have said already several times I'm not personally in favor of. I just don't see the cause for the meltdown it's causing in some people.

If your argument is that you don't have the time to do something that basic, that's fine - it's a perfectly valid argument. But you don't need to use other peoples' disabilities as a shield or to come up with silly stuff about three coats of paint to make that argument. Just be honest about what your argument is.

^"Sleep Faster" - the Schwartz.

The thing that blows me away about this conversation is just how many people are so tied up in winning the game that they are willing to argue things like disability, or whether or not it's a "part of the game".

If I win, I win. If I lose, I lose. But I don't want my pride of winning to outstrip a reward someone could potentially get for putting in the same or more work as I did to present a good experience.

If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?

I struggle to see the reaction as anything more than just being too invested in putting a tally mark in the "W" column to care about the experience.

The objective of the game is to win, but the POINT is to have fun.

Seabass wrote:
If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?

Why should that person win a game because they painted something?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Seabass wrote:
If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?

Why should that person win a game because they painted something?

Because now you can PAINT YOURSELF TO VICTORY!!!

GW can mark up contrasts and say that buying them is like getting 10 free VPs. What a steal

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Seabass wrote:
If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?

Why should that person win a game because they painted something?

Because they did more than just paint something. They presented you with a battle ready army to play against. They put in the work the rules state is required and you didn't. Rewarding their hard work is fine with me. Winning the game is not so important to me that this becomes more important than enjoying a good game with fully painted armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Seabass wrote:
If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?

Why should that person win a game because they painted something?

Because now you can PAINT YOURSELF TO VICTORY!!!

GW can mark up contrasts and say that buying them is like getting 10 free VPs. What a steal

I'm really quite awful with online sarcasm. Are you joking or serious? Because I want to believe you are being a bit cheeky, but this forum is very hard to gauge sometimes.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I guess it wasn't a joke.

Adepticon has painting requirements, so obviously the blind guy figured something out (or got a dispensation - either way, problem solved). I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said there was a much more basic problem to overcome than painting. If you asked him I'm pretty sure he wouldn't say that the painting requirement was the hardest thing about gaming while blind. Moreover, I doubt he'd be very happy at you using his disability as a sword to attack a rule with. If someone with disabilities actually has concerns about the rule, let them bring it up - don't take advantage of their disability to bolster your point.

I will take the fact that you didn't respond to the much more fundamental point about 40k having lots of things that are a lot less disability-friendly than a painting requirement as an admission that the point is right.

On the painting thing, you don't need to do 3 layers of spray paint. That's kinda the point. The requirements are extremely low. You can do one layer of primer, throw some splotches of two other colors on two other areas, a wash, dab some textured paint on the base, and call it a day. It'll be ugly, but it satisfies the rule. Which I have said already several times I'm not personally in favor of. I just don't see the cause for the meltdown it's causing in some people.

If your argument is that you don't have the time to do something that basic, that's fine - it's a perfectly valid argument. But you don't need to use other peoples' disabilities as a shield or to come up with silly stuff about three coats of paint to make that argument. Just be honest about what your argument is.

The problem with these sort of rules is that they often don’t really allow context, and GW has not been at all friendly in there rules for disability’s for there history.
But the other issue here is, not everyone paints to a minimum standard ether, I need help to build miniatures if I want to get them done and in a playable state. I cannot sit or stand for very long in a day, so on my own it takes a long time.
I build each one to be a individual with as much custom work as I can, then with paint I want to paint to the best of my ability which can take hours.
Both I need assistance for or to pay for profession work.
I accept that tournaments as a form of show match will have rules for paint, often as part of but not allways games.
With rules like this pushing it into standard games, it comes off as a position of confrontation as I can stand and sit for long enough to play games before I go home to rest. And most people even at the club I am at won’t know just how difficult it can be. I do this hobby for fun, the game is a important part of that hobby.

: ) dakka emote felt to sarcastic when I just wanted a smile.

I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet - particularly if part of that is because of physical limitations - would be happy to give that person the 10VP.

It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.

At a minimum, the rule really should have had something in it making clear that people should not be technical with it and that the point is to get people painting their armies, not to dock someone points because they have a model they haven't had time to paint yet, and another caveat about being aware of peoples' capabilities as well.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Seabass wrote:
If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?

Why should that person win a game because they painted something?

It's only 10 points. And who's really keeping score at the end of the day? If a person really doesn't care about painted models, then scoring higher on pure game play should be enough of a reward, I would think.

It seems weirdly hypocritical to care about the points awarded for painting if a person only cares about the "technical win". And if the Win is tallied, then it seems like your in more of a tournament or league situation in which there would likely be some expectation of painted models or ignoring of the painted rule.

Edit: I love that at the time of writing the poll is exactly 50/50